The Russian [nuclear] modernization program was spurred by the US withdrawal, under President George W. Bush in 2002, from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which Moscow had for four decades regarded as a central pillar of strategic stability. Moscow’s subsequent failure to reach a new agreement with the United States on missile defenses, and the collapse by 2011 of Putin’s hopes for building a joint Russia-US/NATO missile defense system in Europe made nuclear modernization a top defense priority for the Russian leadership. – Dimiti Trenin (article excerpt)

The January 2019 issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is entitled Spotlight on Nuclear Modernization (Journal Volume 75, Issue 1). For the month of January only, the full issue is accessible free of charge from Taylor and Francis online. This is an exceptional opportunity to read about dangerous new trends in American nuclear policy and how Russia and China are reacting to them.

In this issue, leading experts on the US, Russian, and Chinese nuclear modernization programs argue for reasonable ways that would limit what has been euphemized as “modernization” but actually constitutes a ritual squandering of national resources on weapons that can never reasonably be used.

Since American nuclear policy so often drives that of Russia and China, it is particularly useful to assess their perspectives on the massive American nuclear modernization program now underway. Dmitri Trenin, historian, policy analyst, and director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, explains:

US and Russian strategic worlds are converging. Both countries admit that they are in a confrontation with each other. Both are convinced this situation will last a long while. Both governments lay a premium on perfecting their nuclear weapons. Both defense establishments consider a US-Russian war a possibility and are preparing for it.

Moscow’s and Washington’s strategic optics, however, are just the opposite.

As for the China-USA nuclear relationship, Tong Zhao, an associate at the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, outlines steps the USA can take to help stabilize this interaction.

Maintaining a stable nuclear relationship requires effort from both countries. But because China’s nuclear-weapon strategy is primarily focused on reacting to and deterring potential US nuclear strikes, what Washington does to manage this nuclear relationship will be the most significant external factor on Beijing’s nuclear thinking and policy-making.

The international order as we know it is unravelling, with no clear sense of what will come in its wake. The danger may well lie less in the ultimate destination than in the process of getting there.

Yemen is the first conflict he examines, one with a shameful Canadian component — as Canada declines to follow the example of Germany, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland, all of whom have stopped their arms shipments to Saudi Arabia, the leader of the coalition decimating the Middle East’s poorest country. Malley writes:

If one place has borne the brunt of international lawlessness over the past year it is Yemen. The humanitarian crisis there — the world’s worst — could deteriorate further in 2019 if the key players do not seize the opportunity created over the past weeks by UN Special Envoy Martin Griffiths in achieving a partial ceasefire and encouraging a series of confidence-building steps.

Turning next to Afghanistan, many who have not been closely following this conflict will be unsettled to learn that 2018 saw its most deadly fighting in 17 years. On the positive side, peace negotiations seem to be gaining traction, but they have been potentially undermined by Trump’s unilateral and precipitous announcement of American troop withdrawal.

The rashness of Trump’s decision risks outweighing any potential silver lining. Its timing appeared to catch everyone … off guard.… In Kabul, the sense of betrayal was palpable.

In addition to ongoing conflicts in Syria, South Sudan and Ukraine, Malley also examines other points of tension that could escalate into armed violence, notably Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Israel versus Iran.

One can only hope this [Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives] leads to stronger U.S. pressure on Riyadh to end the war in Yemen and to greater congressional scrutiny of U.S. and Saudi escalatory policies toward Iran.

We increasingly confront a world where greed, coercion and bribery trumps human rights and our common global humanity.

Our Foreign Minister has talked passionately about the USA abandonment of its leadership role in championing the “rules based international order”. Yet the real threat is not American isolationism, but the Trump administration’s relentless attacks on the very notion of a global community based on fundamental principles of human rights and the rule of law.

We call this the “attack from within”.

These Trumpian assaults are numerous and growing. National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has vowed to “legally and financially retaliate” against judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and any state or company assisting them, if they dare to investigate American citizens for possible war crimes in Afghanistan.

The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court.

Then there is the U.S. renunciation of the Iran nuclear deal, a multiparty agreement enshrined in a UN Security Council resolution. Despite repeated international certification of Iran’s compliance with the deal, the USA has illegally re-imposed crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and enacted other measures to similarly punish any state or company that continues to honour the deal.

In other words, those who seek to uphold the global rule of law are being threatened, intimidated and coerced by the USA.

Worst of all is the case of Saudi Arabia, a country which continues to enjoy a privileged, protected relationship with the USA, despite its ongoing war crimes in Yemen, its torture of women activists and the complicity of its de facto ruler, Crown Prince MBS, in the brutal murder of a Saudi journalist, resident in the USA and working for the Washington Post.

Canada’s spineless acquiescence shames us all.

Canada, a once-proud architect of the ICC, has been shamefully mute in the face of U.S. attacks on the court. We have expressed regret at the American departure from the Iran nuclear deal, but have done absolutely nothing to help our European Union colleagues as they struggle to keep the deal alive and Iran on board.

And finally there is our government’s moral cowardice in the face of Saudi Arabian barbarity.

To date, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland have all suspended arms exports to Saudi Arabia.

Not so Canada.

It seems that our much-vaunted support for human rights can simply be bartered away. International law does not permit such trade-offs when fundamental human rights are at risk. Yet our Prime Minister is doing precisely that, every time he raises the potential loss of jobs or the alleged secret penalty clause as an excuse for failing to cancel the intolerably immoral Saudi arms deal.

At the end of the day, if we stand for anything, we have only one choice: Cancel the contract. – Andrew Cohen

There is no time to lose.

We all have a role to play as we seek to restore our government’s basic moral compass.

Fear of Trump must not continue to paralyze our government, even after the completion of the post-NAFTA trilateral trade agreement with the USA and Mexico.

Our end-of-year message to members of Parliament and most of all to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and to Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland is clear: we want their welcome rhetoric in support of human rights, of international law, of fundamental human dignity, to be more than mere words.

We want and expect our government to stand up for what is right, not just when it is easy, but when it is hard, because that is when it really matters. – Peggy Mason, RI President

Please notethere will be no blog on December 28thto give our folks a holiday break.See you allin the New Year!

]]>The too-often ignored legacy of George H. W. Bushhttp://www.rideauinstitute.ca/2018/12/12/the-too-often-ignored-legacy-of-george-h-w-bush/
http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/2018/12/12/the-too-often-ignored-legacy-of-george-h-w-bush/#respondWed, 12 Dec 2018 17:45:50 +0000http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/?p=7619We will never learn the real lessons if we do not face up to the true legacy of departed American presidents.

While many argue it is impolite to speak ill of the dead, we agree with Peter Certo at the Institute for Policy Studies that an honest assessment of the legacy of America’s 41st President, George H. W. Bush, is not only a good idea but downright essential for democratic accountability. Referencing Panama, other CIA intrigues during the Cold War and the many U.S.- inflicted horrors of the first Gulf War, he writes:

Personally, I believe these acts are crimes that should be atoned for and never repeated…. Taking a rare opportunity to scrutinize them publicly seems more conscientious to me than observing even a well-intentioned silence after their architect’s passing.

Mehdi Hasan, writing in The Intercept, goes further in his examination of the “ignored legacy” of Bush Senior, particularly American war crimes in the first Gulf War. He writes:

Under Bush Sr., the U.S. dropped a whopping88,500 tons of bombson Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, many of which resulted in horrific civilian casualties…. U.S. bombs also destroyed essential Iraqi civilian infrastructure — from electricity-generating and water-treatment facilities to food-processing plants and flour mills…. to create postwar leverage over Iraq.

By January 1992, Bush’s so-called “good” Gulf War had caused the deaths of 158,000 Iraqis, including 13,000 immediate civilian deaths and 70,000 deaths from the damage done to electricity and sewage treatment plants.

There was, of course, one very important difference between the 1991 and the 2003 American-led military intervention in Iraq. The first was authorized by a UN Security Council Resolution and the second was not.

While some at the time believed this was a precedent that might constrain future unilateral military action by the USA, the second — illegal — American-led intervention in Iraq proved this to have been an illusory hope.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons (George H.W. Bush)

]]>http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/2018/12/12/the-too-often-ignored-legacy-of-george-h-w-bush/feed/0A new look at Iran and an update on the Saudi/Yemen nightmarehttp://www.rideauinstitute.ca/2018/12/04/a-new-look-at-iran-and-an-update-on-the-saudi-yemen-nightmare/
http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/2018/12/04/a-new-look-at-iran-and-an-update-on-the-saudi-yemen-nightmare/#respondTue, 04 Dec 2018 22:08:51 +0000http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/?p=7601

In response to Trump’s claim that Iran seeks to hold the U.S. hostage to nuclear blackmail, Peter Jenkins, a retired British career diplomat, writes:

[R]easonable observers tend to the view that Iran’s leaders have opted for a nuclear hedging strategy: they would like to position themselves close to the nuclear weapon threshold but are well aware that crossing the threshold in the absence of a threat justifying the acquisition of a nuclear deterrent would be an act of self-harm. Being a threshold state is not illegal. There are plenty of them.

Another Trump claim is that the deal fails to prevent Iranian development of nuclear-capable missiles. Jenkins responds:

Iran is under no treaty obligation to refrain from developing missiles. There is no agreed definition of “nuclear-capable.” Iran has never tested long-range missiles and says it has no intention of acquiring them.

As for medium-range missiles, Jenkins suggests we consider Iran’s point of view:

True, Iran’s neighbors see its expanding missile capabilities as a threat. But Iran, too, sees the expanding capabilities of those neighbors as a threat. So, the U.S. response ought to be to promote a regional dialogue on missile proliferation, not to withdraw from the JCPOA [nuclear agreement].

Jenkins also tackles the perpetually repeated U.S. allegation that Iran is “the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism” — despite the fact that its own Congressional Research Service disagrees.

In reality, the United States justifies its charge by pointing to Iranian support for Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas. The United States considers these to be terrorist organizations. True, both have undertaken terrorist operations in the past. But both have evolved into more complex entities. So, that characterization can be challenged.

Perhaps the most useful part of the analysis is the discussion of Iran’s motivation for its actions in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. In other words, the author is doing something that is all too rare with western commentators these days — he is looking at the regional security situation through Iranian eyes. He writes:

In Syria for instance, when it seemed likely that Bashar al-Assad would fall, Tehran would have seen that as a very serious threat to its ability to supply Hezbollah so that Hezbollah can deter Israeli attacks on Iran. In Yemen, modest support for the Houthis has been a low-cost opportunity to bugger up the war plans of Iran’s neighbour, rival, and, currently, sworn enemy: Saudi Arabia.

In a resounding defeat for the White House and Republican Senate leadership, the US Senate voted this week to advance legislation that would give President Trump 30 days to get the US military out of Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war inYemen, unless he could get Congressional authorization for US military intervention. Which he almost certainly could not.

In the meantime, Saudi Arabia and its coalition partner, the United Arab Emirates, have torpedoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire and resumption of humanitarian deliveries in Yemen to stave of famine for millions. This is yet more proof that they will not budge so long as western-supplied arms — including those from Canada — just keep on coming.

And see CBC journalist Robyn Urback’s disturbing article contending that Canada (one of the world’s richest countries) simply cannot afford to stop selling weapons to Saudi despots. (Note that we in fact have no idea how many jobs may or may not be lost, because of the secrecy surrounding the contract.)

Here we are selling arms to a medieval regime that is using them to kill innocents indiscriminately in Yemen. This is helping them buttress a leadership that jails, tortures and kills without apology.

At the end of the day, if we stand for anything, we have only one choice: Cancel the contract.

On Tuesday, 4 December, the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade passed Bill C-47 without amendment. This means that Canada will join the Arms Trade Treaty without meeting two of its most fundamental obligations – to control, and to report on, all its arms exports to all destinations, including the USA, which continues to be exempted. Click here for a dispiriting audio tape of the Senators’ discussion and passage of the Bill.